Does anything exist? First, clarify the concept, then look for the thing, the object

[KingCoil]

Dear Protestor, do you care to present something of whose existence there is doubt about?

You see, this thread is intended precisely to enable humans to resolve the existence or non-existence of something, by first requiring that parties into the issue first concur on the concept of that something the existence of which they are disputing, then to proceed to look for that something in actual objective reality.

Now, I say that there are things people concur already to be non-existent in objective reality, so there is no need to concur on the concept of that something; and there are things existing in objective reality of which we have no concepts wherefore no knowledge whatsoever.

Please just present something the existence of which is disputed, no need to write so many words.

KingCoil

 

[Aloysium]

Okay, relationship is a concept in our mind; a concept in our mind is a thing in our mind that we can talk about so that we both know what we are talking about, unless in the course of our conversation we notice that we are not talking about the same thing in our respective mind; in which situation we both determine what thing in our mind we are talking about, otherwise we would be talking past each other’s head, and to continue in that manner is to behave irrationally and even insanely.

Now, my concern in the thread is to get people to concur with me that when we want to determine a thing to exist in objective reality or not, first we have to concur on the concept of the thing in our mind, then when we have already concurred on the concept, then we can go forth in objective reality to look for the object that corresponds to the concept in our mind.

Of course we can talk about things which do not have corresponding objects in objective reality, and there are objects in objective reality of which we have no concepts of in our mind.

This first rule in the exchange of thoughts among us humans in finding out whether a thing at all exists in objective reality is to my thinking the foremost crucial step to be adopted, and observed by all parties engaged in the determination of a thing to exist in objective reality or not, for example, God.

I don’t intend any irreverence to God in referring to Him as a thing, because a thing is the broadest category beyond which there is no further categories of things in existence – even concepts in our mind are things for existing in our mind, which mind is also a thing that exists as concept and also as object in objective reality.

KingCoil

:twocents:

We are engaged in a discussion. This is reality. We can think and talk about this reality in which we are participating.

To grasp the reality of a relationship requires not so much the clarifying of a concept as it does the mutual involvement of two persons. The perfection of relationship is love.

Which brings us to God, it is in relating to Him that we get to know Him. In Catholicism we find Him in solitary and communal prayer, in the mass, in the eucharist and other sacraments, as well as in contemplation of the Church’s teaching. From that basis we encounter God in every day life.

Having said all this, I am doing as you suggested, clarifying, describing the concept of relationship and engaging in an exchange of ideas. This I understand would be followed by going “forth in objective reality (eg: returning to the Church) to look for the object (a relationship with God) that corresponds to the concept in our mind.”

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Okay, relationship is a concept in our mind; a concept in our mind is a thing in our mind that we can talk about so that we both know what we are talking about, unless in the course of our conversation we notice that we are not talking about the same thing in our respective mind; in which situation we both determine what thing in our mind we are talking about, otherwise we would be talking past each other’s head, and to continue in that manner is to behave irrationally and even insanely.

Dear Aloysium, I agree with your post, your thoughts and sentiments there.

My concern here can be addressed if you will accede to this request from me:

Can you be willing to bring up a controversial thing the existence of which is disputed, so that we can work together to resolve it – please, don’t bring in the question whether you and I are existing and are engaged in conversation here.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Allow me to insert this comment from myself in the Facebook page of Professor Matt Strassler, Physicist.

KingCoil:

Professor Matt Strassler, Physicist
facebook.com/ProfMattStrassler

Marius Dejess * aka KingCoil ]*
2 minutes ago

• Comment from Marius Dejess ]*

I like very much to ask you this question.

You write so much about this topic:
Virtual Particles: What are they?
profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Suppose you tell us lay folks right away does a virtual particle exist at all in objective reality?
Or it is only in our mind, i.e., there is no such a thing that exists in objective reality corresponding to the concept in our mind of virtual particle.

Now, how do I understand objective reality versus the realm of concepts in our mind?

By way of examples, objective reality is that realm of everything that exists even though humans with a mind do not have any thought about it in their mind, or even though there is no human doing any thinking or mathematical computation whatsoever in the mind about it, for examples:

An apple is a concept in our mind but it is also an object in objective reality, so that even though there is no mind of humans thinking of an apple or there are no humans at all ever, the apple still exists in objective reality.

Now, here are examples of a concept that is in the mind of humans, an invisible pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster, they exist as concepts in the mind of atheists but they do not exist in objective reality, at least not in the objective reality that is accessible to humans.

So, please tell us right away, do virtual particles have any existence as objects in objective reality outside the mind of humans?

Of course, you can tell us that they do not have as of now with humans any objective reality outside our minds: because we have not yet seen them even indirectly from the effects of virtual particles in things that do exist already in objective reality.

Then you can add that we or physicists are still looking for them in objective reality, namely, still looking for virtual particles that correspond to the concept of virtual particle in our mind, and we are still doing experiments or trying to contrive instruments that can detect for us the presence if any presence at all in objective reality of virtual particles, virtual particles that correspond to the concept of virtual particle in our mind.

So, I like you to tell us that virtual particles are what I call mental constructs, but as of today and here in our realm of objective reality that we do have access to directly or even indirectly (by the effects of virtual particles in things which do already exist in objective reality), we still do not have contact with virtual particles even just one particle, and even just indirectly, as for example, owing to the detection from instruments we have invented if any at all now.

My idea is that you might be very accessible to us in your explanation of virtual particles, if you would just first make a distinction of concept in our mind and object in objective reality, and answer right away: whether virtual particles are all in our mind, or they are also in actual objective reality, i.e., there are objects in actual objective reality that correspond to the concept of virtual particle in the mind of very learned and most profound and most subtle thinkers among the best physicists of whatever kind of physics they are into.

Thanks for reading this comment, and I hope you will follow my proposal and tell us in your comment in your here page in Facebook, your answer and explanation to the question: Do virtual particles have existence in objective reality, or they are presently only in the minds of the most learned and subtle thinkers or manipulators of concepts in their mind, among physicists of all whatever kinds of physics.

Thanks in advance for the kind indulgence of readers and posters here.

KingCoil